From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist |
Date: | 2016-06-14 12:46:15 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+yGs-onuJDy+TTqnrnT0hty_QQPC1GipS+ce-W3872QQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > In practice, we don't yet have the ability for
> > parallel-safe paths from subqueries to affect planning at higher query
> > levels, but that's because the pathification stuff landed too late in
> > the cycle for me to fully react to it.
>
> I wonder if that's not just from confusion between subplans and
> subqueries.
>
Won't the patch as written will allow parallel-restricted things to be
pushed to workers for UNION ALL kind of queries?
Explain verbose Select * from (SELECT c1+1 FROM t1 UNION ALL SELECT c1+1
FROM t2 where c1 < 10) ss(a);
In above kind of queries, set_rel_consider_parallel() might set
consider_parallel as true for rel, but later in set_append_rel_size(), it
might pull some unsafe clauses in target of childrel. Basically, I am
wondering about the same problem as we discussed here [1].
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksey Demakov | 2016-06-14 13:27:05 | Re: Using FDW AddForeignUpdateTargets for a hidden pseudo-column |
Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2016-06-14 12:46:06 | Re: Using FDW AddForeignUpdateTargets for a hidden pseudo-column |